16-50 vs 35 prime
I own both and I posted a comparison at f/5.6 between the two:
Basically what I found is that the 16-50 is really good at this FL. However, the 35mm prime is good from wide open. It's a power house with its sharpness, large aperture and OSS. Coupled with the qualitative high ISO images of the NEX6 (up to 3200), low light shooting is just a breeze and a pleasure. I'm keeping the zoom for its wide angle range, although it's just average there, and because of its size. You can keep the 35mm on camera and the 16-50 in any pocket. You can always get the 16mm, but it's not better than the zoom at 16mm, it's not worth it IMO. I'm still waiting for an affordable and a qualitative wide prime (<16mm) to decide that the 16-50 is no longer needed.
|Douaumont Ossuary by Eric 54-BNF|
from Armistice Day
|Silhouette at sunset by Jill Hancock|
from Portrait Lens (around 80mm or equivalent - please check the full rules)